Some Nazarenes get it.

[Hans Deventer]

Kudos!

[Doug Ward]

Kudos!

Attachment 3943

Message - Kudos. Grammar - failure. Should be differently.

[Dana Grant]

Message - Kudos. Grammar - failure. Should be differently.

It should also be FROM, not than.

but who's being picky -- LOL

[Gina Stevenson]

It should also be FROM, not than.

but who's being picky -- LOL

We are!

Have noticed that a lot, esp in recent years ... wherever, not picking on NazNet ... someone will use what seems an inappropriate comparative/connecting word, so I just think, "Oh well, someone did not pay much attention in Englsh class!"

ETA: but, YES! The sign definitely deserves kudos, even if not put together by a grammarian.

PS * Hans, who posted this, definitely paid attention. Wouldn't know English wasn't his first language! Kudos, Hans.

[Rich Schmidt]

Message - Kudos. Grammar - failure. Should be differently.

Do not judge others just because they write different than you.

[Gina Stevenson]

Do not judge others just because they write different than you.

Just had to ... had to ... had to respond, since we know that you knew ... that this should read "differently."

[Rich Schmidt]

Just had to ... had to ... had to respond, since we know that you knew ... that this should read "differently."

Yes, I know. But then it wouldn't match the sign.

[Ian Gentles]

Truth is Hans post, the church sign message, hits the nail on the head, for all christians.

[Brian Hammons]

It should also be FROM, not than.

but who's being picky -- LOL

Maybe there were no more L's, Y's, F's, R's, O's or M's left in the box of letters.

[Wes Smith]

What is this? I quit sinning when I was sanctified.

Friend,

Wes

[Wes Smith]

All kidding aside, the sign raises some interesting theological questions and that sign wouldn't have, in my opinion, been tolerated in the Church of the Nazarene or even thought of say 30 years ago and earlier.

My Iowa upbringing taught me that sanctified Nazarenes did not sin and if you did you had to go back to square one and get saved and sanctified all over again. Thus the saying, "Born again! (and again and again and again) I was every preacher's convert back in the 50's. An easy mark with a tender heart!

So, just so you know, after my total consecration in 1969 I did fail once in 1984. It revolved around an issue that I won't describe, but, thank goodness, it was pointed out to me that it was a mistake and not a sin, so my raiments are still untainted. Defining sin as a mistake or error in judgement is a very helpful part of our doctrine, don't you think?

In my post-College days I had the idea that with the way we play catch with the word "perfection" that I would add one more "perfection,"...perfect confession. Since we were doing it anyway with the Lord's Prayer, why not just make it a formal part of our doctrine and when we are convicted just immediately and perfectly confess to God and, if appropriate, people! Has worked for me all these years!

If you can follow this post, you are REALLY good!

Friend,

Wes

[Wilson Deaton]

If you can follow this post, you are REALLY good!

And from "REALLY good" it's just a short hop to perfection!

Wilson

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Let me tell you what I think about sin:

We believe that actual or personal sin is a voluntary violation of a known law of God by a morally responsible person. It is therefore not to be confused with involuntary and inescapable shortcomings, infirmities, faults, mistakes, failures, or other deviations from a standard of perfect conduct that are the residual effects of the Fall. However, such innocent effects do not include attitudes or responses contrary to the spirit of Christ, which may properly be called sins of the spirit. We believe that personal sin is primarily and essentially a violation of the law of love; and that in relation to Christ sin may be defined as unbelief.

Because of that, I think the sign is well intentioned, but fails to reflect what I believe.

[Gina Stevenson]

Maybe there were no more L's, Y's, F's, R's, O's or M's left in the box of letters.

Ah, but they would have had to lose a bunch of letters. There is no L currently used, and they had to have had more than one Y to begin with (sets are akin to scrabble tiles, no?), so . . . nice try, tho', Brian.

[Ryan Scott]

Let me tell you what I think about sin:

We believe that actual or personal sin is a voluntary violation of a known law of God by a morally responsible person. It is therefore not to be confused with involuntary and inescapable shortcomings, infirmities, faults, mistakes, failures, or other deviations from a standard of perfect conduct that are the residual effects of the Fall. However, such innocent effects do not include attitudes or responses contrary to the spirit of Christ, which may properly be called sins of the spirit. We believe that personal sin is primarily and essentially a violation of the law of love; and that in relation to Christ sin may be defined as unbelief.

Because of that, I think the sign is well intentioned, but fails to reflect what I believe.

Under the definition that sin is "a violation of the law of love," wouldn't the act of judging that the sign warns against be a sin in itself?

[David Gerber]

[Todd Erickson]

Let me tell you what I think about sin:

We believe that actual or personal sin is a voluntary violation of a known law of God by a morally responsible person. It is therefore not to be confused with involuntary and inescapable shortcomings, infirmities, faults, mistakes, failures, or other deviations from a standard of perfect conduct that are the residual effects of the Fall. However, such innocent effects do not include attitudes or responses contrary to the spirit of Christ, which may properly be called sins of the spirit. We believe that personal sin is primarily and essentially a violation of the law of love; and that in relation to Christ sin may be defined as unbelief.

Because of that, I think the sign is well intentioned, but fails to reflect what I believe.

Part of the problem with this is that the judgement on what violates the law of love tends to be really subjective. Especially when it comes to rebukes...

"Oh, Teacher, I don't have a log in my eye. I'm completely sanctified. I'm free and clear to tell everybody about the splinters in their eyes without fault".

Something feels like it's missing in there, somewhere...

[David Graham]

Because of that, I think the sign is well intentioned, but fails to reflect what I believe.

Thanks Scott, I think you've nailed how I feel about the sign also.

On one hand every Christian is flawed..... we need grace and therefore we need to show grace,
but on the other hand do we really wamt to advocate a "sinning religion"? As St. Paul said: "God forbid!"

I think we often run into problems like this when we try and reduce our theology down to neat little cliches like as on the sign. The issues are much too complicated to do so successfully....... and yet if we are to "catch" the world's attention apparently we have only a few words to do so........ such is the pace of the world and the general attention span of the most of the population who generally could care less.

I know that I'm "judging" but I'd still give the church a 9 out of 10 for the sign, based simply upon their intent.

[Ian Gentles]

ROFLOL thats fantastic